Housing society's redevelopment consideration constitutes transfer of development rights, not taxable as LTCG under Section 50C

The Bombay HC held that consideration received by a housing society for redevelopment constituted transfer of development rights, not land or building, and thus was not taxable as LTCG under Section 50C in the society's hands but belonged to members. The court affirmed ITAT's decision that Rs. 3.50 crores received without possession transfer to developer was assessable as capital gains, not income from other sources. The HC found no substantial questions of law and dismissed the revenue's appeal, following the precedent from Raj Ratan Palace case.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Taxation of consideration received on redevelopment of land (LTCG) in the hands of the society.
2. Taxability of the amount received towards the corpus fund in the year of receipt.
3. Treatment of the amount paid by the developer to MHADA on behalf of the assessee.

Summary:

Issue 1: Taxation of Consideration Received on Redevelopment of Land (LTCG)
The High Court examined whether the consideration received from the redevelopment of land should be taxed in the hands of the society. The ITAT had held that the consideration should not be taxed in the hands of the society, as the receipts were distributed among the members. The Tribunal relied on the precedent set by the Raj Ratan Palace Co-operative Housing Society case, where it was determined that since the income was received by individual members and offered for taxation by them, it should not be taxed again in the hands of the society. The High Court found that the facts of the present case were almost identical to the Raj Ratan Palace case and upheld the ITAT's decision, concluding that there should be no double taxation.

Issue 2: Taxability of Corpus Fund Amount
The second issue was whether the amount received towards the corpus fund was taxable in the year of receipt. The AO had treated the Rs. 15 Crores received towards the corpus fund as taxable under 'income from other sources,' while the CIT(A) and ITAT held that only the amount actually received during the year (Rs. 3.50 Crores) should be taxed. The ITAT concluded that since possession of the land was not given to the developer during the year, the amount received should be assessed under 'capital gains' and not 'income from other sources.' The High Court found no error in the ITAT's conclusion.

Issue 3: Treatment of Amount Paid by Developer to MHADA
The third issue was whether the amount paid by the developer to MHADA on behalf of the assessee should be treated as income of the assessee. The ITAT held that such payments should not be treated as the assessee's income. The High Court agreed with the ITAT's decision, noting that the Revenue had not challenged the Tribunal's finding that the facts were similar to the Raj Ratan Palace case, where similar payments were not treated as income of the society.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial questions of law arising from the ITAT's decision. The ITAT's conclusions on all three issues were upheld, confirming that the consideration received on redevelopment should not be taxed in the hands of the society, the corpus fund amount should be taxed as 'capital gains,' and the amount paid by the developer to MHADA should not be treated as the assessee's income.

---